Agile F-35 High Wing Loading

[cola]

According to LM, the F35 (240-3) does 4.95g (sust.) at M.8 at 15k ft., when loaded with 2 AMRAAMs, but with undisclosed fuel load. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 030509.xml)

On the similar altitude and speed (according to USAF), the F4E does 4.8g sustained, but armed with 4 AIM-7s.


In terms of sustained turning, the F35 (240-3) is quite similar to an F4.

[alloycowboy]

Cola, what part of the, "The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration—also known as the 240-4—are classified", did you miss?

Those charts are totally useless!

[FDiron]

A Rand analysist who has never flown anything but his desk

vs

Various test pilots who have flown the jet and have a lifetime experience in aeronautics

Ask yourself Which ones the more credible source..?

Chuck Yeager said that company test pilots were little more than below average pilots and above average salesmen.

[Raptor_claw]

A Rand analysist who has never flown anything but his desk

vs

Various test pilots who have flown the jet and have a lifetime experience in aeronautics

Ask yourself Which ones the more credible source..?

Chuck Yeager said that company test pilots were little more than below average pilots and above average salesmen.

Yeah... okay. Yeager's personality flaws are well-documented - no need to rehash here.
I could cite dozens of examples (as could anyone that's been around flight testing of developmental aircraft), but how about just one?

Phil Oestricher <= average pilot?

.........Not so much.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LockheedMartinVideos#p/c/3BDB0188355D1CF5/16/HRMCykYWreM

[butters]

Fan of the F-35 and LM or not, I don't think anyone could seriously believe that LM (or any other a/c manufacturer, for that matter) would ever consider putting their prize possession into the hands of a 'below average' pilot.

That said, unless the a/c is flawed to the point of being dangerous, even the most forthright of company pilots will almost certainly be toeing the company line when it comes to press announcements.

JL

[Scorpion82]

Cola, what part of the, "The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration—also known as the 240-4—are classified", did you miss?

Those charts are totally useless!

And what exactly has changed from the 240-3 to 240-4? Wasn't the 240-3 the pre-SWAT model? Might be a bit heavier, but the aerodynamics haven't improved have they?

[cola]

@'cowboy,

I did say 240-3, didn't I?
Besides, 240-4 weights ~29,039 lbs, as opposed to 240-3, which is ~29,300 lbs.
Aerodynamics and engine are the same, so where do you figure the difference occurs?

(charts are most certainly not useless, particularly operator ones)

[alloycowboy]

The charts are not relevent because F-4 and the F-35 are two totally different aircraft with forty five years plus of aerodynamics evolution between them. Also you don't know how accurate the information that aviation week recieved is because the article didn't quote a source or a specific document all it quotes is "Lockheed Martin" or the "Contractor". This is a tactic journalists often use when their data or source is uncertain.

[FlightDreamz]

alloycowboy
Some would argue that the only reason the F-4 fly's at all is because it is repulsed by the earth.

Love it! That should be a bumper sticker or something (no offense to any former Phantom drivers).
Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering by Robert Shaw is a great book (if I little hard to read in spots) I highly recommend it.
http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296005294&sr=1-1
Gotta dig up my dogeared copy and start leafing through it again.

[popcorn]

that comparison between the F-35 and F-4 has been around for a while and is often cited by critics of the F-35 to support their claims of poor performance. Without knowing the fuel load of the f-35, its inconclusive at best how the 2 aircraft would compare. Its been noted that the f-35 is of an earlier configuration. Could FCS rules have been updated on newer F-35s? Also, the AF has always been very guarded about releasing performance figures for its a/c and this applies to the F-35. For them to sign off on the public release of these figures by LM would seem to imply that they don't see any possible foe extrapolating any useful performance info on the jet.

[Scorpion82]

The charts are not relevent because F-4 and the F-35 are two totally different aircraft with forty five years plus of aerodynamics evolution between them. Also you don't know how accurate the information that aviation week recieved is because the article didn't quote a source or a specific document all it quotes is "Lockheed Martin" or the "Contractor". This is a tactic journalists often use when their data or source is uncertain.

In this case you might won't to drop the other stats reported (M 1.67, AoA 55°) they all stem from that source. Funny how these are repeatedly brought up, but the less favourable data are dismissed? That's telling!

[johnwill]

Raptor claw said,

Phil Oestricher <= average pilot?

.........Not so much.


I had lunch with Phil a few weeks ago. He is roughly 80 now, looks 50, and hasn't changed a bit since Flight 0 of the YF-16. Very low key, suffers fools badly, and is still intensely interested in all forms of aviation. He is still building radical flying models just to see what happens.

[alloycowboy]

The charts are not relevent because F-4 and the F-35 are two totally different aircraft with forty five years plus of aerodynamics evolution between them. Also you don't know how accurate the information that aviation week recieved is because the article didn't quote a source or a specific document all it quotes is "Lockheed Martin" or the "Contractor". This is a tactic journalists often use when their data or source is uncertain.

In this case you might won't to drop the other stats reported (M 1.67, AoA 55°) they all stem from that source. Funny how these are repeatedly brought up, but the less favourable data are dismissed? That's telling!

Scorpion82..... No your right, it's premature to quote any aircraft performance numbers as the F-35 Lightning II still has far to go in its actual test flight program. The information that is out there is either marketing or disinformation as no true test flight data has been released. So to whip out some F-4 phantom performance charts showing its maneuvering qualities with four external missiles bolted on and then trying to interpolate and extrapolate that data over to the F-35 is a bit ridiculous to say the least.

[wrightwing]

that comparison between the F-35 and F-4 has been around for a while and is often cited by critics of the F-35 to support their claims of poor performance. Without knowing the fuel load of the f-35, its inconclusive at best how the 2 aircraft would compare. Its been noted that the f-35 is of an earlier configuration. Could FCS rules have been updated on newer F-35s? Also, the AF has always been very guarded about releasing performance figures for its a/c and this applies to the F-35. For them to sign off on the public release of these figures by LM would seem to imply that they don't see any possible foe extrapolating any useful performance info on the jet.

^This!

I guarantee you, that no precise performance figures have been released, for that very reason. There are a lot of things we don't know about that claim(I.e. fuel load, FCS limits, approved envelope, etc...)
What we do know is that, the AF/LM, etc... have claimed better performance than F-16/18s, which would make any comparison with F-4s, F-105s, A-7s, highly suspect.

[battleshipagincourt]

I guarantee you, that no precise performance figures have been released, for that very reason. There are a lot of things we don't know about that claim(I.e. fuel load, FCS limits, approved envelope, etc...)

Well there's what LM claims. Huge fuel capacity, internal bomb load, all those electronics, that powerful engine... all compacted into such a small fighter with significant wing loading and no thrust vectoring.

The logical conclusion, regardless of any LM claims, is that this will be a heavy fighter with a poor turn radius. Thrust vectoring would have been VERY useful, had those goddamned marines not gotten their VSTOL sh*t integrated into this otherwise capable airframe.

What we do know is that, the AF/LM, etc... have claimed better performance than F-16/18s, which would make any comparison with F-4s, F-105s, A-7s, highly suspect.

Correct. Highly suspect on the part of the company building this thing. What else would you expect LM to claim? That this thing is a flying brick and that it can't turn worth sh*t?

But you're right... such claims are only speculation. I still don't trust LM anymore than I trust basic physics. A heavy vehicle with limited control surfaces and short wings won't turn as well as something like a Mig 35 or an F-16. Or a company who's future is riding on this fundamentally flawed piece of sh*t called the F-35B?

I'm not directing any blame on LM, who were forced to comply with the wretched Marines and their f***** VSTOL sh*t. They should have built an AF/Navy variant and told the Marines to forget their VSTOL sh*t and move on.